3 ms·

Well, you are wrong. I am in no way "conceal[ing] the truth or avoid committing oneself". I am fully committed to the position that you are incorrect, and I've

Well, you are wrong. I am in no way "conceal[ing] the truth or avoid committing oneself". I am fully committed to the position that you are incorrect, and I've used clear language to show you why.

glenstein 5y ago
It refers to deliberate ambiguity. The Google statement is clearly different from the statement falsely attributed to them. And its by the addition of ambiguity (equivocating) that this false attribution is being defended.
brimble 5y ago
Yes, you have it right: >>> Adrian Krebs @krebs_adrian Replying to @dannysullivan Thanks for clarifying this. I think the post leaves some room for interpretation. The intention was that ads should be more clearly differentiated from organic results, which is not the case today. >>> To repeat: "The intention was that ads should be more clearly differentiated from organic results" The concern of the entire thing aligns with the reading that most people (apparently?) took away to begin with, which is that their above-the-results ads are so similar to organic results that all of the same things are wrong with it as with directly selling placement within results. The confusion appears to stem entirely from Krebs having in his head that a top-of-organic-results-placement of a link is still, also, an ad, when he wrote the original post. Which is not unreasonable, but could, lacking other context (but there's a ton...) be read a different way. He corrects that in the above follow-up and confirms your interpretation. The original complaint is about exactly the thing that (again, apparently) most people took it to be.
- glenstein 5y ago
  >The original complaint is about exactly the thing that (again, apparently) most people took it to be. You were so close to being right, only to completely lose it at the end. Krebs is making a broader point about ads not being distinguishable from search. Good! Fair, appropriate criticism. Krebs however, falsely claimed that Google's statement included declaration that they were opposed to placing ads above search results. Numerous HN commenters confused the two things. Faced with the correction, people on HN equivocated between the indisputably false characterization of Google's statement and a broader criticism of making ads similar to search results, as if a statement about the former amounts to a latter. It doesn't, it was this lack of interest in truthful characterization, rather than the innocence of Google that was at issue. Now, Krebs acknowledged the correction of his incorrect characterization, and restated his concern as a broader point that was no longer false. Hilariously, it is this abandonment and reformation of his point is now being treated as vindication by HN commenters who were defending the false version.
  - brimble 5y ago
    Krebs wrote (the single piece of support you have for your reading, right?): >>> Wow, this is gold. The post critiques the practice of displaying ads above search results, a method used by some of Google's competitors back then. At the time Google published this, it only put ads in the sidebar to the right of search results: >>> (emphasis mine) The thing is, the only allowance we have to make for everything to be entirely consistent with both Krebs' other statements and the other interpretations which he has not challenged (unlike yours, which he directly did contradict in the quoted post [in the prior comment, that is], that was why he posted that, responding to that [I guess?] googler who took the same reading as you) is the following: Simply that he wrote "displaying ads" here to mean "paid top results". All that needs to be true, and not even strictly a mistake, is that it's reasonable to call a paid top result an ad. That seems reasonable. Everything else here immediately falls into place. Your reading requires a lot more stretching to reach, including assuming some uncharitable things about Krebs, as far as I can tell. The only other thing in support of your position is the statement near the end of the above about where Google used to place ads, but that's easily read as emphasizing how far they have come, compared with where they started, and providing context of the state of their search page when they released this statement. Krebs made two other posts highlighting that his concern is about how hard they make it to tell their ads from search results. The charitable and most straightforward reading, also consistent with the document he posted, is that he either intended the above, or made a tiny slip in one place. It also seems to be the way most people read it. Unless you think he's bullshitting in his clarification, you did not read it the way it was intended. [EDIT] Meaning-preserving brain-fart fixes, sorry, tired as hell.

Well, you are wrong. I am in no way "conceal[ing] the truth or avoid committing oneself". I am fully committed to the position that you are incorrect, and I've used clear language to show you why.

glenstein 5y ago

It refers to deliberate ambiguity. The Google statement is clearly different from the statement falsely attributed to them. And its by the addition of ambiguity (equivocating) that this false attribution is being defended.

brimble 5y ago

Yes, you have it right: >>> Adrian Krebs @krebs_adrian Replying to @dannysullivan Thanks for clarifying this. I think the post leaves some room for interpretation. The intention was that ads should be more clearly differentiated from organic results, which is not the case today. >>> To repeat: "The intention was that ads should be more clearly differentiated from organic results" The concern of the entire thing aligns with the reading that most people (apparently?) took away to begin with, which is that their above-the-results ads are so similar to organic results that all of the same things are wrong with it as with directly selling placement within results. The confusion appears to stem entirely from Krebs having in his head that a top-of-organic-results-placement of a link is still, also, an ad, when he wrote the original post. Which is not unreasonable, but could, lacking other context (but there's a ton...) be read a different way. He corrects that in the above follow-up and confirms your interpretation. The original complaint is about exactly the thing that (again, apparently) most people took it to be.

glenstein 5y ago
>The original complaint is about exactly the thing that (again, apparently) most people took it to be. You were so close to being right, only to completely lose it at the end. Krebs is making a broader point about ads not being distinguishable from search. Good! Fair, appropriate criticism. Krebs however, falsely claimed that Google's statement included declaration that they were opposed to placing ads above search results. Numerous HN commenters confused the two things. Faced with the correction, people on HN equivocated between the indisputably false characterization of Google's statement and a broader criticism of making ads similar to search results, as if a statement about the former amounts to a latter. It doesn't, it was this lack of interest in truthful characterization, rather than the innocence of Google that was at issue. Now, Krebs acknowledged the correction of his incorrect characterization, and restated his concern as a broader point that was no longer false. Hilariously, it is this abandonment and reformation of his point is now being treated as vindication by HN commenters who were defending the false version.
- brimble 5y ago
  Krebs wrote (the single piece of support you have for your reading, right?): >>> Wow, this is gold. The post critiques the practice of displaying ads above search results, a method used by some of Google's competitors back then. At the time Google published this, it only put ads in the sidebar to the right of search results: >>> (emphasis mine) The thing is, the only allowance we have to make for everything to be entirely consistent with both Krebs' other statements and the other interpretations which he has not challenged (unlike yours, which he directly did contradict in the quoted post [in the prior comment, that is], that was why he posted that, responding to that [I guess?] googler who took the same reading as you) is the following: Simply that he wrote "displaying ads" here to mean "paid top results". All that needs to be true, and not even strictly a mistake, is that it's reasonable to call a paid top result an ad. That seems reasonable. Everything else here immediately falls into place. Your reading requires a lot more stretching to reach, including assuming some uncharitable things about Krebs, as far as I can tell. The only other thing in support of your position is the statement near the end of the above about where Google used to place ads, but that's easily read as emphasizing how far they have come, compared with where they started, and providing context of the state of their search page when they released this statement. Krebs made two other posts highlighting that his concern is about how hard they make it to tell their ads from search results. The charitable and most straightforward reading, also consistent with the document he posted, is that he either intended the above, or made a tiny slip in one place. It also seems to be the way most people read it. Unless you think he's bullshitting in his clarification, you did not read it the way it was intended. [EDIT] Meaning-preserving brain-fart fixes, sorry, tired as hell.